Rank all the Superman films

[BatmanFurst]

I think Superman III and IV absolutely suck, to put it bluntly. But Singer will always be rock bottom for me. His film is called SUPERMAN RETURNS and Singer bungled Superman's return in an unforgivable way. He cemented Superman's reputation as an outdated Reeve caricature with a blaring John Williams theme. He set the character back, not forward. That's a gross act of sabotage that lingers strongly to this day. It's all the zombies still want as they're closed off to anything else. Snyder set things right and that's reflected in my ranking. We didn't need a transition, we needed a complete overhaul.

I just don't understand this level of vitriol for Superman Returns. When someone says that they hate Superman 3 or 4 I can see why. With Returns it's a complete mystery to me. I just don't see how this film disrespected Superman in any way shape or form.

[thecolorsblend]

I just don't understand this level of vitriol for Superman Returns. When someone says that they hate Superman 3 or 4 I can see why. With Returns it's a complete mystery to me. I just don't see how this film disrespected Superman in any way shape or form.

Singer and his cinematographer whose name escapes me tried like hell to give SR the same aesthetic "glow" that Donner and Geoffrey Unsworth gave to STM. They failed miserably and the movie looks like sludge.

The lighting is usually worse. Very often, the lighting is sitcom-friendly flat lighting that's easy to set up quickly. Smallville was nearing its visual zenith when SR premiered in theaters. I think it's sad that Smallville, a weekly TV show produced for a fraction of the budget, looks infinitely better than SR, the multi-hundred million dollar "blockbuster". The lack of color in the production design, most costumes and color timing makes for a dreary, bleak viewing experience.

Singer assumed that STM was just as well known to and just as beloved by viewers who were then under 30 as Star Wars. He found out the very hard way that he was wrong. STM was not as well known as Star Wars '77. As great as STM might be, it didn't have the same level of widespread audience acclaim as Star Wars. Therefore, making a film so heavily dependent upon STM was a poor decision.

Speaking of which, based on STM's continuity or not, SR does little or nothing to reintroduce the characters and the story to wide audiences. They had no real access point to the story. SR is basically a sequel to a film that doesn't exist in the public consciousness. Wide audiences need a gateway into any film and SR never provides one.

Routh is bland and forgettable in SR. He was bland and forgettable in Chuck. He was bland and forgettable in Zack & Miri. He was bland and forgettable in Legends Of Tomorrow. He is bland and forgettable in everything he does and he was horribly miscast as Superman.

All that aside, Superman has responsibilities to the world. In Superman II, I don't buy that he would forsake his powers just to do the hibbity dibbity with Margot Kidder. In SR, I don't buy that Superman would blow town for five years to chase windmills in outer space looking for Krypton, a world he already knows to be dead, extinct and lost forever.

I could buy that he might blow town just to get away from that version of Lois, who is a spiteful, unlikable shrew of a human being who makes no bones about sleeping her way to the top. But I digress.

Although on a related note, I said that Routh was miscast as Superman. But casting him as Superman may as well be casting Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone compared to how horribly miscast Kate Bosworth was as Lois. I couldn't buy Kate Bosworth at that age as Lucy Lane, much less Lois Lane.

Speaking of which, the entire cast is probably about 15 or 20 years younger than they should be. Implicitly, the story wants Superman to be somewhere in his mid-upper 40's, ditto Lois, Perry and Lex somewhere in their 60's and I guess Jimmy would be in his mid-upper 30's. And yet, Routh is not radically older than Sam Huntington, who played Jimmy. The numbers and ages just don't add up at all.

The costume design is a train wreck next to a dumpster fire in the middle of a $#!+ show. Clark starts off wearing a vintage 70's three piece before switching his wardrobe to something more modern for that time. Lois, meanwhile, has this retro 40's fashion thing going while Lex dresses like a turn of the century robber baron. The characters wardrobes are not of a piece with each other at all.

The Superman uniform in the movie is a disaster. It's the most colorful element of any scene where its featured. But unfortunately, that's not saying very much. Smallville used the SR uniform as a prop in season 10 and I'm always struck by how Smallville's post production team improved the coloring of the SR suit.

Giving Superman a son is a powerful dramatic moment. The problem is that it kills the core Superman mythos. It's impossible to tell a conventional Superman story where Superman and Lois both know that Jason is their son. Lois is irresponsible if she continues intentionally putting herself in harm's way. Superman is irresponsible if he doesn't take an active hand in the child's upbringing... even tho doing so essentially requires Superman to be something of a homewrecker. Giving the character a child is what should be done to finish that version of his story; not launch a new franchise.

SR was the first live action Superman film in nearly twenty years up to that point. Filmmaking technology had radically improved since Superman IV. Greater care should have been done to take full advantage of those improvements. Plenty of glory shots of Superman using his powers, flying, etc. But that rarely happens. Even the "big climatic destruction of Metropolis" sequence didn't amount to much more than some broken windows, a toppled Daily Planet globe and a gas main explosion. Really? An entirely new landmass growing off the coast of Metropolis and that's it? Metropolis looks better while a brand new continent is growing less ten miles away than landlocked Portland looks right now.

For comparison, Snyder showed Superman learn to fly and then showed him FLYING. During that sequence, Cavill is usually kept close to the camera, large and in charge, powerful-looking as he effortlessly zig-zags through rock formations and breaks the sound barrier over the ocean. Look back at SR, where Singer continually pulled the camera away when the character took flight, making him look like a speck on the screen. Excuse me, but is this Superman? Or Mighty Mouse?

Canonically, where does Superman II fit in with SR? Is SR a direct sequel to STM? Or is SR essentially "the new Superman III"? Singer isn't interested in answering those questions. The questions are raised, presumably to pique the interest of people familiar with Superman II. But the lack of clarification doesn't benefit the material at all. I think there's no saving Superman II no matter which cut you watch but knowing if its even in continuity would still be helpful.

The real tragedy of SR is that there's a good (or even GREAT) film hiding somewhere in the core premise: Superman comes back, only to discover that the world has adjusted to and accepted his disappearance. I do not believe that Singer or the writers Harris and Dougherty had the perspective, seasoning and life experiences to tell that story authentically. But I maintain there's a lot of mojo to that basic concept.

None of it gets explored tho. The world at large seemed to have easily adjusted to Superman's absence. When he returns, they easily adjust to him being back. No questioning, no lack of trust, no need to win anybody over, no need to explain himself, nothing. Literally the only holdout is Lois. But her stupid perspective is "the world doesn't need Superman". And that only because she feels rejected rather than because she earnestly believes that. Once she finally changes her tampon, she welcomes him back too. So in the end, Superman's departure meant nothing, it cost nothing and it resulted in nothing.

What if Superman returned, only for the public to initially react with scorn? "How long are you sticking around this time? My sister died in a fire a year ago, sure would've been nice if someone invincible could've flown her out of the building." What if he discovered that Lex had already 100% rehabilitated his public image and was running for public office with nobody to point out that he's a murderer and insurrectionist? What if upon his return, he discovered that Martha Kent had died of some easily treatable injury on the Kent farm?

My point is WHAT IF SUPERMAN'S DEPARTURE HAD ACTUAL, LASTING CONSEQUENCES?

Again, compare that to Snyder, where Superman's death DOES have real consequences, with Steppenwolf having MUCH easier pickings on Earth than he would have if Superman was still alive. Love or hate Snyder's DC films. But actions have consequences in each of those movies and it appears that Justice League will be no exception.

Long post, I know. But you asked.

[The Laughing Fish]

Canonically, where does Superman II fit in with SR? Is SR a direct sequel to STM? Or is SR essentially "the new Superman III"? Singer isn't interested in answering those questions. The questions are raised, presumably to pique the interest of people familiar with Superman II. But the lack of clarification doesn't benefit the material at all. I think there's no saving Superman II no matter which cut you watch but knowing if its even in continuity would still be helpful.

If SR is a sequel to the Lester cut, it breaks Superman's promise he made to the President of never letting humanity down again if he disappears for the next five years.

If SR is a sequel to the Donner cut, it begs the question why couldn't Superman turn back time and get those five years back.

Neither option casts a favourable light on SR, or any version of SII.

For me, Reeve's legacy was secured once he starred in the Donner film. From that point onwards, the quality of the sequels are up and done, to put it rather nicely.

[BatmanFurst]

I just don't understand this level of vitriol for Superman Returns. When someone says that they hate Superman 3 or 4 I can see why. With Returns it's a complete mystery to me. I just don't see how this film disrespected Superman in any way shape or form.

Singer and his cinematographer whose name escapes me tried like hell to give SR the same aesthetic "glow" that Donner and Geoffrey Unsworth gave to STM. They failed miserably and the movie looks like sludge.

The lighting is usually worse. Very often, the lighting is sitcom-friendly flat lighting that's easy to set up quickly. Smallville was nearing its visual zenith when SR premiered in theaters. I think it's sad that Smallville, a weekly TV show produced for a fraction of the budget, looks infinitely better than SR, the multi-hundred million dollar "blockbuster". The lack of color in the production design, most costumes and color timing makes for a dreary, bleak viewing experience.

Singer assumed that STM was just as well known to and just as beloved by viewers who were then under 30 as Star Wars. He found out the very hard way that he was wrong. STM was not as well known as Star Wars '77. As great as STM might be, it didn't have the same level of widespread audience acclaim as Star Wars. Therefore, making a film so heavily dependent upon STM was a poor decision.

Speaking of which, based on STM's continuity or not, SR does little or nothing to reintroduce the characters and the story to wide audiences. They had no real access point to the story. SR is basically a sequel to a film that doesn't exist in the public consciousness. Wide audiences need a gateway into any film and SR never provides one.

Routh is bland and forgettable in SR. He was bland and forgettable in Chuck. He was bland and forgettable in Zack & Miri. He was bland and forgettable in Legends Of Tomorrow. He is bland and forgettable in everything he does and he was horribly miscast as Superman.

All that aside, Superman has responsibilities to the world. In Superman II, I don't buy that he would forsake his powers just to do the hibbity dibbity with Margot Kidder. In SR, I don't buy that Superman would blow town for five years to chase windmills in outer space looking for Krypton, a world he already knows to be dead, extinct and lost forever.

I could buy that he might blow town just to get away from that version of Lois, who is a spiteful, unlikable shrew of a human being who makes no bones about sleeping her way to the top. But I digress.

Although on a related note, I said that Routh was miscast as Superman. But casting him as Superman may as well be casting Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone compared to how horribly miscast Kate Bosworth was as Lois. I couldn't buy Kate Bosworth at that age as Lucy Lane, much less Lois Lane.

Speaking of which, the entire cast is probably about 15 or 20 years younger than they should be. Implicitly, the story wants Superman to be somewhere in his mid-upper 40's, ditto Lois, Perry and Lex somewhere in their 60's and I guess Jimmy would be in his mid-upper 30's. And yet, Routh is not radically older than Sam Huntington, who played Jimmy. The numbers and ages just don't add up at all.

The costume design is a train wreck next to a dumpster fire in the middle of a $#!+ show. Clark starts off wearing a vintage 70's three piece before switching his wardrobe to something more modern for that time. Lois, meanwhile, has this retro 40's fashion thing going while Lex dresses like a turn of the century robber baron. The characters wardrobes are not of a piece with each other at all.

The Superman uniform in the movie is a disaster. It's the most colorful element of any scene where its featured. But unfortunately, that's not saying very much. Smallville used the SR uniform as a prop in season 10 and I'm always struck by how Smallville's post production team improved the coloring of the SR suit.

Giving Superman a son is a powerful dramatic moment. The problem is that it kills the core Superman mythos. It's impossible to tell a conventional Superman story where Superman and Lois both know that Jason is their son. Lois is irresponsible if she continues intentionally putting herself in harm's way. Superman is irresponsible if he doesn't take an active hand in the child's upbringing... even tho doing so essentially requires Superman to be something of a homewrecker. Giving the character a child is what should be done to finish that version of his story; not launch a new franchise.

SR was the first live action Superman film in nearly twenty years up to that point. Filmmaking technology had radically improved since Superman IV. Greater care should have been done to take full advantage of those improvements. Plenty of glory shots of Superman using his powers, flying, etc. But that rarely happens. Even the "big climatic destruction of Metropolis" sequence didn't amount to much more than some broken windows, a toppled Daily Planet globe and a gas main explosion. Really? An entirely new landmass growing off the coast of Metropolis and that's it? Metropolis looks better while a brand new continent is growing less ten miles away than landlocked Portland looks right now.

For comparison, Snyder showed Superman learn to fly and then showed him FLYING. During that sequence, Cavill is usually kept close to the camera, large and in charge, powerful-looking as he effortlessly zig-zags through rock formations and breaks the sound barrier over the ocean. Look back at SR, where Singer continually pulled the camera away when the character took flight, making him look like a speck on the screen. Excuse me, but is this Superman? Or Mighty Mouse?

Canonically, where does Superman II fit in with SR? Is SR a direct sequel to STM? Or is SR essentially "the new Superman III"? Singer isn't interested in answering those questions. The questions are raised, presumably to pique the interest of people familiar with Superman II. But the lack of clarification doesn't benefit the material at all. I think there's no saving Superman II no matter which cut you watch but knowing if its even in continuity would still be helpful.

The real tragedy of SR is that there's a good (or even GREAT) film hiding somewhere in the core premise: Superman comes back, only to discover that the world has adjusted to and accepted his disappearance. I do not believe that Singer or the writers Harris and Dougherty had the perspective, seasoning and life experiences to tell that story authentically. But I maintain there's a lot of mojo to that basic concept.

None of it gets explored tho. The world at large seemed to have easily adjusted to Superman's absence. When he returns, they easily adjust to him being back. No questioning, no lack of trust, no need to win anybody over, no need to explain himself, nothing. Literally the only holdout is Lois. But her stupid perspective is "the world doesn't need Superman". And that only because she feels rejected rather than because she earnestly believes that. Once she finally changes her tampon, she welcomes him back too. So in the end, Superman's departure meant nothing, it cost nothing and it resulted in nothing.

What if Superman returned, only for the public to initially react with scorn? "How long are you sticking around this time? My sister died in a fire a year ago, sure would've been nice if someone invincible could've flown her out of the building." What if he discovered that Lex had already 100% rehabilitated his public image and was running for public office with nobody to point out that he's a murderer and insurrectionist? What if upon his return, he discovered that Martha Kent had died of some easily treatable injury on the Kent farm?

My point is WHAT IF SUPERMAN'S DEPARTURE HAD ACTUAL, LASTING CONSEQUENCES?

Again, compare that to Snyder, where Superman's death DOES have real consequences, with Steppenwolf having MUCH easier pickings on Earth than he would have if Superman was still alive. Love or hate Snyder's DC films. But actions have consequences in each of those movies and it appears that Justice League will be no exception.

Long post, I know. But you asked.

Thank you for the detailed response. I guess the difference between me and a lot of other people with this film is that I didn't go into it with a list of things that I expected it to do. I just wanted a good film with Superman. I didn't care about it being a sequel to Superman 1 & 2. I like Brandon Routh in it, and I don't despise Kate Bosworth in the role. I've tried to look for the film that you and everybody else portrays it to be and I have yet to see it.

[The Dark Knight]

This new article goes to what I've been saying about nostalgia being a curse on modern material. And specifically how Christopher Reeve has become the real Kryptonite hanging around the franchise's neck.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sherazfarooqi/2020/09/10/the-future-of-superman-on-film-must-embrace-evolution-over-nostalgia/#54afcf243140

And a reference to the creative failure of Singerman:

An example of this would be 2006's Superman Returns. Starring Brandon Routh, Superman Returns was the first Superman movie in almost 20 years after Reeve's final film. After two decades of the character trying and failing to give itself a restart, including shelved projects by Tim Burton and J.J. Abrams, the studio opted to go back to its comfort zone, production a pseudo-sequel to 1980's Superman II.

Unfortunately, Superman Returns was doomed the moment it decided Routh would not play Superman, but Reeve's version Superman. The film tried to give audiences everything they loved about Reeve on the surface level; the smile to the camera, the iconic score, and the lighter tone. Yet, in that, the film felt like a shell of Reeve's work. Superman Returns underperformed at the box office with $391 million. One could wonder what the state of the Superman franchise would have been if they went with a reboot a la Christopher Nolan's The Dark Trilogy instead of relying on the nostalgia of 1978.

Spot on.

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you for the detailed response. I guess the difference between me and a lot of other people with this film is that I didn't go into it with a list of things that I expected it to do. I just wanted a good film with Superman. I didn't care about it being a sequel to Superman 1 & 2. I like Brandon Routh in it, and I don't despise Kate Bosworth in the role. I've tried to look for the film that you and everybody else portrays it to be and I have yet to see it.

I can respect that. I understand. It's fine to have a different opinions. We don't have to agree about everything.

Still, the main issue I wanted to communicate is that I'd spent 3/4's of my life (up to then) waiting for a new Superman film. And all I had to show for it was freaking SR. I wanted a great Superman film. And clearly, what I wanted was something very different from what Singer preferred to do.

Snyder's MOS was a lot closer to the Superman film I wanted back in 2006 than SR ever dreamed of being. After all these years, I guess I can put SR into some kind of context. Possibly a necessary step in putting the Donner canon to bed forever? But either way, the bad far outweighs any possible good in SR, at least for me.

[The Dark Knight]

Still, the main issue I wanted to communicate is that I'd spent 3/4's of my life (up to then) waiting for a new Superman film. And all I had to show for it was freaking SR. I wanted a great Superman film. And clearly, what I wanted was something very different from what Singer preferred to do.

Snyder's MOS was a lot closer to the Superman film I wanted back in 2006 than SR ever dreamed of being. After all these years, I guess I can put SR into some kind of context. Possibly a necessary step in putting the Donner canon to bed forever? But either way, the bad far outweighs any possible good in SR, at least for me.

There were weird pitches for a new direction after Reeve, eg. Superman Lives. It probably was too out there, but at least they were thinking about doing something different.

After that fell through the studio went back to their comfort zone. In their mind they probably thought they were protecting the property from a disaster.

A different take: perhaps it was a good thing Returns came out when it did?   

A film like Superman Returns was probably inevitable. If Lives was made, I could see the Reeve fans freaking, much like the reaction to the electric blue suit, and demanding a return of the old Reeve template.

Returns was corrosive to the brand but ultimately it was rejected. Forcing a more palatable reinvention later down the line rather than Nicolas Cage. Snyder's take should've been done in 2006 but it wasn't. We had to wait. 

From my point of view the reinvention worked - the here and now Superman has been under people's noses the whole time with Snyder and Earth One. The issue is that the rusted on Reeve lovers cannot accept that, and double down on the past.

They say "Superman78 is the best comic book movie of all time, and the only Superman movie I need." So no more Superman films ever, then? What selfish arrogance.

WB really needs to ignore the Reeve fan base. After ZSJL comes out the heat should be applied as to Cavill's future. It's unacceptable for this ripe fruit to wither on the vine.

[thecolorsblend]

Singer and his cinematographer whose name escapes me tried like hell to give SR the same aesthetic "glow" that Donner and Geoffrey Unsworth gave to STM. They failed miserably and the movie looks like sludge.

I'm coming back to this.

Basically, Singer had a choice: shoot the movie on 70mm or on digital. For God only knows what reason, he chose digital. Specifically, he chose Genesis HD, which at the time was not very good. Hell, Panavision was still evolving Genesis well into 2007, a year after SR came out!

The talking point surrounding SR's production was that "bright red and blue wouldn't work in live action anymore". Hence, the costume design focused on dull, muted tones for the SR costume. A soft powder blue for the bodysuit, wine red for the cape and a mustard hue for the yellow sections. Interesting aesthetic choices, to be sure. But they weren't made in the interest of "appealing to mass audiences". On the contrary, the Genesis system wouldn't have been able to accurately replicate the correct tones of, for example, the Reeve Superman suit.

So rather than choose a different HD video system or, better yet, shoot on 70mm film, Singer went with the unproven, borderline-prototype Genesis for his mega budget movie and the rest is history.

To be clear, I don't think brighter colors would've improved the film. But for me, selecting Genesis to shoot the movie tells you everything you need to know about the decision-making processes occurring behind the scenes. The end result is a dull, muddy, colorless, joyless affair that probably would've been a serious black eye on digital cinema had SR not been followed by far superior looking digital HD films (i.e., Crank, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, etc) in relatively short order.

One of the big controversies that I remember from the summer of 2006 is how scandalized a lot of videophiles, film students, cinematographers, etc, all were that Attack Of The Clones somehow looked better than SR even tho AOTC was shot five whole years earlier, which was an eternity in R+D at that time.

Compare that to MOS, which was shot on film and really looks great. I don't have the same boner for film that a lot of other people seem to have but there's no denying that film works great and looks amazing.

[The Laughing Fish]

The costume design is a train wreck next to a dumpster fire in the middle of a $#!+ show. Clark starts off wearing a vintage 70's three piece before switching his wardrobe to something more modern for that time. Lois, meanwhile, has this retro 40's fashion thing going while Lex dresses like a turn of the century robber baron. The characters wardrobes are not of a piece with each other at all.

Looking back at this again, my guess is SR's costume design might've taken inspiration from Burton's timeless approach to Batman. The problem is taking that approach for SR doesn't make much sense because Donner's Superman is clearly set in the 1970s. The look and feel of SR as a sequel doesn't fit in the same world at all, no matter how many Reeve references there are.

[The Laughing Fish]

If SR was made today, it wouldn't surprise me if they deepfaked Reeve's face in the movie. I can only imagine this would've made SR even more divisive than it already it is.

For sh*ts and giggles, here is another Reeve deepfake for the Arrowverse version of COIE.